POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

9/11 Myths has long been a favorite resource for skeptics and debunkers alike. Its author, Mike Williams, has compiled a collection of straw men, coupled with many distorted interpretations of valid claims. While many of Mike’s “takes” can be dismissed as patently absurd by most of us, his slimy nature and style of addressing these can be deceptive to those who are new to this material and haven’t had time to do their research. Therefore, I think it’s important that we have a thread dedicated to debunking 9/11 Myths. It’s a huge website and so I don’t know if I will ever have the time to write an entire debunk, however, if we all work together on this we’ll have Mike’s site debunked in no time!

The oft presented still picture from the Bin Laden confession tape does not prove that this is a man other than Bin Laden in the video. The Truth Movement will only show one image of comparison and several other frames from the video debunk this claim.

Our Take:

While I actually happen to agree with Mike that the picture in question has been overused, his claims that other frames from the video show the real Bin Laden are not necessarily true. The frames presented by 911 Myths do at first glance appear convincing; however, they offer no comparison against known photos of Osama as a reference.

So, could the man in the video really be Bin Laden? Let's put this to the test…

In both comparisons, the orientation of each photo is approximately the same. You will notice that the real Bin Laden has a much longer, more pronounced nose. Also, the eye/nose and nose/ear ratios are considerably greater on the real Bin Laden.

On the other hand, if you believe that the man in the video is Bin Laden, then you should consider the following:

Picture “C” below is one of the last known pictures of Bin Laden taken in about December 2001.

Bin Laden was suffering from a kidney disease at the time, and as you can see from this picture his health has deteriorated dramatically. This is in strong contrast to the well-built, healthy Bin Laden we see in the video. Bearing in mind Bin Laden was already receiving treatment in July 2001, could his appearance have changed so much between September and December 2001?

From the low camera angle and lack of eye contact from Bin Laden and others present, the appearance of this video is more consistent with one being shot by a security agent than one produced by Bin Laden's men. Note that Bin Laden never addresses the camera which is also unusual. If this tape had been shot by a security agent, then it is clear that the circumstances under which it was "found" are a lie.

The excessive noise on the audio track makes it impossible to hear what is being said. This also makes it very difficult to positively identify anybody appearing in the video by either their appearance or voiceprint. Bin Laden's voice is so barely audible that when the video was first released, even viewers in Arab nations had to rely on the Pentagon's translated subtitles.

On December 20, 2001, the German TV show Monitor (the "60 Minutes of Germany") found the translation of the "confession" video to be not only "inaccurate", but even "manipulative". Dr. Abdel El M. Husseini and Professor Gernot Rotter made an independent translation and accused the White House translators of "writing a lot of things that they wanted to hear but cannot be heard on the tape no matter how many times you listen to it."

In the tape, Osama allegedly claims that he knew of the attacks 5 days in advance, yet we know from the preparations inside the US that the plan had been in existence for much longer.

Also, the translation of the Osama tape has him stating that the hijackers did not know they were about to die, yet letters the FBI claim to have found written by the hijackers indicate the exact opposite.

This is not the first time a translator has inserted claims into a video of Bin Laden. In an earlier tape, a claim that Osama had nukes was in fact inserted by a translator and not spoken by Bin Laden himself.

Furthermore, Bin Laden strongly denied any role in the attacks of 9/11 and suggested that these were instead orchestrated by Zionists. The BBC published Bin Laden's statement of denial in which he said:

"I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States nor did I have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a government within a government within the United States. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; to the people who want to make the present century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity. That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks....The American system is totally in control of the Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States."

I think anyone who thinks that is a tape of bin Laden is an obvious Idiot. Period.

It's not even close.

Even the GubMint isn't talking about that video anymore. (not officially)

They really embarrassed themselves with that one.

I think it's pretty funny, as merely one example, that 911myths uses a comment by bin Laden that he never saw any U.S. help for the Mujahadeen as some sort of 'proof' that we didn't. And that in a section where they are trying to 'debunk' the theory that "bin Ladin was trained and funded by the CIA".

What an Idiot.

It's been my experience that, even though some anti-9/11 Truth sites make the occasional good point, mostly they just flail around and hope people don't notice.

And they are often done by, and visited by, skepters. (especially their forums)

"Skepter" is a derogatory term for someone who thinks they are a "true skeptic", but falls far short.

A true skeptic is open, objective and unbiased, or tries very hard to be so, and succeeds to some level or degree.

Whereas skepters are the antithesis of that. They tend to be immediately anti-"Conspiracy Theory" of any kind. And, although they tend to be relatively intelligent, they usually aren't too brite, and are usually undeservedly arrogant and egotistical. Often laughably so. (I suggest they are pseudo-intellectuals; you will also find them oohing and aweing over the likes of James Randi, et al. — Randiites are some of the worst of them)

They are the type of people who called the Watergate Conspiracy and the Iran-Contra Conspiracy, among most others, "Conspiracy Theories", in the negative, dismissal sense. Some of them probably still think they aren't Conspiracy Theories that were proven Conspiracy Fact.

Thereby the Idiot label.

This post has been edited by conspiracy_chestnut: Nov 26 2006, 06:43 AM

On the suggestion that Atta and others were followers of Takfir wal Hijra, I recommend looking into the section headed "The Takfir Paradigm", pp. 228-230, in Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed's "The War on Truth: 9/11, Disinformation, and the Anatomy of Terrorism".

Quote:"Thus, the new scenario being proposed by Western intelligence officials to explain the patently un-Islamic behavior of the 9/11 hijackers is largely incoherent. Despite claims to the contrary, Takfir wal Hijra is aggressively opposed to al-Qaeda and its strict ideology is fundamentally incommensurate with the prospect of permitting defiance of Islamic rules under any circumstances. Furthermore, al-Qaeda is in turn staunchly opposed to Takfir. Therefore, the anomaly of the 9/11 hijackers persists: They clearly did not possess the conduct of hardened Islamic fundamentalists connected to al-Qaeda. So, who were they?"

He then suggests that they might be double-agents, citing Stanley Hilton and reported testimony of a woman married to one of the 9/11 hijackers.

The suggestion of Takfir wal Hijra was put forth by intelligence officals without any evidence linking Atta or any of the others to this organization. Since 9/11 was an inside job carried out by elements within our own government, that compromises the credibility of any information put out by our CIA.

Also, bear in mind that according to Andreas Von Bulow, the former German Minister of Technology, 95% of what the intelligence agencies produce is deception. Therefore even if this suggestion was put forth by honest agents, we have no way of verifying the validity of their statements.

I think a class in disinformation, propaganda, advertising, marketing, and related issues, should be required in highschools before they are allowed to graduate, just like the "government class" requirement.

I'm not going to bother with Mike's section on the collapse of the WTC simply because it's based on the FEMA and NIST reports which have already been debunked. He also used the same strawmen introduced by Popular Mechanics which have also been debunked. Instead I'll leave some links:

Some of the people who question this aspect of the official account, say that there’s no way that terrorists would have chosen this particular area of the Pentagon. But is there any reason to believe they would care which wall they hit? The Pentagon is a symbolic target, that’s the whole point. Supporters of these attacks couldn’t care less whether the plane flew into the east wall, west wall, roof, it doesn’t matter. The aim was simply to hit it, that’s all that mattered.

But then you might expect the pilot to take the easiest possible path, say the critics, and that didn’t happen on 9/11. Why is that a surprise, though? If the official account is to be believed then this was a very inexperienced pilot. Would he know precisely when the Pentagon was coming up, when to begin reducing altitude, the speed he should be travelling, and the appropriate rate of descent? Maybe not. We do know he flew past the Pentagon at something like 7,000 feet, so it’s possible the pilot simply overshot.

There is another possibility, too. The hijackers would surely want to think about their flight plan in advance, choose a trajectory that followed landmarks easily visible from the ground, and could be flown at reasonably low altitude. A pilot called Steve Koeppel produced an article speculating on exactly this.The 270 degree right turn had me puzzled, until I realized that it would provide a simple set of landmarks for the pilot. Just intercept the Potomac River north of town, follow it south until you see the Washington Monument or Capitol. We used to use white country churches to navigate low-level over North and South Carolina, since they stand out clearly against the green or brown background.

Upon passing the Washington Monument, the plan may have been for the pilot to make a right turn and dive into the building. A right turn at this point would have led the airplane to hit Pentagon on the Potomac River side where the Secretary of Defense has his office. http://www.armytimes.com/content/editorial...tagonimpact.jpg

But being unfamiliar with flying large airplanes at high speeds, the pilot wouldn't have taken into account the large radius required to make the turn. This would explain the circuitous 270 degree turn that was made to the impact point.

When he rolled out, he'd simply point the nose of the airplane at the center courtyard of the Pentagon and dive toward his target. What he wouldn't know without experience is that when you dive, you accelerate the airplane and the lift increases. This causes the nose to rise, which would cause him to overshoot the target. In a panic, he would push forward on the controls and overcompensate, which would account for eyewitness descriptions of the airplane striking the ground short of the Pentagon.

This analysis is flawed in that his approach trajectory doesn’t match that described by witnesses, but it remains an interesting idea. And it’s notable that a pilot describes the wide turn and eventual impact as a sign that the person flying Flight 77 was inexperienced, not that he must have been particularly skilled.

Further, if we look at what appears to be commonly accepted as the final approach, then we can see it does follow the Columbia Pike (dotted line is just an approximation, but you get the idea).

Navigation by landmarks remains a possible explanation for Flight 77’s final manoeuvres.

Our Take:

Firstly, it was not a 270-degree turn, but rather a 330-degree turn coming in from the west! (Thanks JDX ) Let's take a look at the route Hani Hanjour took before deciding to make his 330-degree turn. Below is a link to an animation provided by the NTSB of Flight 77's final approach toward the Pentagon:

Here you will see the Pentagon is straight ahead of Flight 77. It is also a very distinctive landmark, even from 8,000 feet. Since Hani was an inexperienced pilot, the most logical action for him would be to push the nose straight down into the Pentagon. It is also very clear from this animation that contrary to Mike's suggestion, Hani did not overshoot the building.

Also, if as Mike claims, Hani decided to make this over elaborate maneuver simply because he was planning to navigate by way of landmarks easily visible from the ground, then perhaps Mike would care to explain exactly how Hani knew when and where to begin his 330-degree turn? The most visible landmark from his altitude upon approach was the Pentagon!

If we consider Mike's assertion that due to Hani's inexperience with flying large airplanes at high speeds he under-estimated the radius required to make the turn, then Mike is overlooking a major contradiction: The level of skill required to undertake such a maneuver in a Boeing 757 without stall is a challenge to even the most experienced pilots.

Even Hani's flight instructor told the New York Times: "I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. [Hani] could not fly at all."

However, despite this we are supposed to believe that Hani flew a 757, undertook a 400 knot, 330 degree spiraling dive at 2500 fpm, only gaining 30 knots, then 30 knots more descending from 2200 feet at full power, with a very steady hand as to not overshoot or hit the lawn, inside ground effect, at 460 knots impact speed, even though he was refused to rent a Cessna 172 for being unable to land at 65 knots?

This has never struck us as an idea that made much sense, especially if you believe the US Government were behind 9/11. If you were constructing a fake terrorist attack because you wanted to attack Afghanistan, or Iraq, then wouldn’t you involve a few Afghans or Iraqis? But no, we’re supposed to believe that they made them inconvenient Saudis, instead.

Worse still, the planners picked live Saudis almost at random, despite the fact that they’d be sure to come forward and spoil the whole thing. Why would anyone do that?

What’s more, all these stories occurred very soon after 9/11. Once the FBI released their official list of hijackers, complete with photographs (on the 27th September), these stories disappeared. This suggests to us they were only ever a mixup over names, and once the photos appeared as well these individuals realised they weren’t wanted men after all.

And in fact if you look at the details, you’ll find this seems the most likely explanation. Read more in our analyses of the most common “still alive” stories: Abdulaziz Al Omari, Ahmed Al-Nami, Khalid Al Mihdhar, Mohammed Atta, Said al-Ghamdi, Salem Al-Hamzi, Wail Al-Shehri and Waleed Al-Shehri.

Name confusion persists elsewhere, too, in the suggestion that some of the hijackers trained at Pensacola Air Force Base. Some people report this as absolute fact, but like so much of the 9/11 conspiracy story, it ain’t necessarily so.One factor complicating the investigation is that the hijackers' Arabic names are remarkably common. For example, when investigators went to the Naval Air Base in Pensacola, the address listed on a Florida driver's license issued to a Saeed Alghamdi in 1997, they learned that several people by that name had attended flight school there over the past 10 years.

"What we have here is a situation of people with identical names", said Harry White, public affairs officer at the base. He said the school has had more than 1,600 people with the first name Saeed, spelled various ways, and more than 200 with the surname Alghamdi.

White maintains, however, that none of the Saeed Alghamdi students was involved with terrorist activity. "We have found no direct connection between any of the foreign students trained at NAS Pensacola and any of the terrorist suspects,? he said.http://www.humanunderground.com/11septembe...-hijackers.html

More than 200 Saeed Alghamdis? This shows how unsurprising the “hijackers still alive” stories are. And how none of them yet provide proof that the person they’re referring to matches the claimed hijacker.

Another development makes this even less likely. Because if some of the named Saudis are still alive and innocent, then why has Saudi Arabia now accepted that they were involved?

Saudi Arabia acknowledged for the first time that 15 of the Sept. 11 suicide hijackers were Saudi citizens...

Previously, Saudi Arabia had said the citizenship of 15 of the 19 hijackers was in doubt despite U.S. insistence they were Saudis. But Interior Minister Prince Nayef told The Associated Press that Saudi leaders were shocked to learn 15 of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.

And subsequently a video called “the 19 Martyrs” was released and partly aired on al Jazeera, which reportedly featured photographs of hijackers, and included bin Ladin giving a brief description of each. You’ll find a detailed page on the video here, with some interesting new photos, and we’ve saved a copy locally for posterity. We don’t know if the video is real, or this is an accurate account of it, but if true then it is another indication that the named hijackers were involved, and they’re now all dead.

Our Take:

Firstly, let's clear up Mike's straw man once and for all - The claim is not that some of the alleged hijackers were still alive, but rather that men with the same identities were reported alive after 9/11. Furthermore, while it is true that some of the "alive" stories were simply cases of mistaken identity, there are also instances where this is not the case.

He tells the reporter, "[Mohammed Atta] called me the day after 9/11, and told me he was fine. If it is true he was on the plane, they have to show me DNA evidence. I have asked the authorities in Egypt to go through my phone logs from that day to see who called me. They have not done that."

Mike attempts to destroy the credibility of Atta Senior with the following CNN interview from July 20th, 2005:http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/07/19/...rror/index.htmlHowever, in this interview the reported demeanor of Mohamed el-Amir completely contradicts that of all previous and subsequent interviews with other (mostly non-American) journalists. Furthermore, his views as reported by CNN completely contradict his eminent belief that his son is still alive and that 9/11 was orchestrated by Zionists and insiders within the US Government.

If as CNN suggest, Atta Senior was the proud father of a martyr, then why did he not voice this opinion after 9/11, or even on any other occasion before or after this interview with CNN? Clearly something is amiss with this interview.

In fact, this would not be the only occasion where CNN have distorted the views of an interviewee to fit their story. In a recent interview with Christopher Bollyn, CNN smeared Bollyn as a rabid anti-Semite, who believed that "the Jews were behind 9/11", however, if we listen to the full, unabridged interview, we will see that this was not his view at all:

As with Bollyn's interview, CNN's interview with Mohamed el-Amir casts serious doubts upon the reliability of this story, and even the overall integrity of the publication. Therefore, Mike should realize that in this case, CNN may not be the most credible of sources.

Khalid Al Mihdhar - On October 4th 2001, the Chicago Tribune reported Mihdhar as saying:"'I want to think all this is a mistake.' Al Mihdhar was watching TV at home when friends saw his photograph on the news and began to call to see if he was still alive."

In the following story it is reported that Khalid Al-Mehdar was also identified as Khalid Almihammadi. The closest it comes to suggesting a mix up is that "the FBI first released a different picture of Mehdar. Later it published the picture of Mihammadi."http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4§ion=0&...d=27&m=9&y=2001

It suggests that two different pictures were released, however, it does not state which picture Al Mihdhar saw.

Mohand Alshehri - According to the Orlando Sentinel, the Saudi Arabian Embassy confirmed that ... Mohand Alshehri ... [is] not dead and had nothing to do with [9-11]. This was reported in the American Free Press, 10/12/2001.

Al-Ghamdi's name, place, date of birth and occupation all matched. It was also claimed that: "The FBI had published his personal details but with a photograph of somebody else, presumably a hijacker who had "stolen" his identity. CNN, however, showed a picture of the real Mr Al-Ghamdi."

So, it is clear that we are looking at a possible case of stolen identity.

Here you will see the Pentagon is straight ahead of Flight 77. It is also a very distinctive landmark, even from 8,000 feet! Since Hani was an inexperienced pilot, the most logical action for him would be to push the nose straight down into the Pentagon. It is also very clear from this animation that contrary to Mike's suggestion, Hani did not overshoot the building!

I have gone over this in the new film. You're gonna love what you see.. Lets just say.. 911myths doesnt have a clue.. and he wont be able to use the 'overshoot' excuse anymore..

Here you will see the Pentagon is straight ahead of Flight 77. It is also a very distinctive landmark, even from 8,000 feet! Since Hani was an inexperienced pilot, the most logical action for him would be to push the nose straight down into the Pentagon. It is also very clear from this animation that contrary to Mike's suggestion, Hani did not overshoot the building!

I have gone over this in the new film. You're gonna love what you see.. Lets just say.. 911myths doesnt have a clue.. and he wont be able to use the 'overshoot' excuse anymore..

Here's to JDX...

I've found Mike Williams to be a particularly slimey character, however, it will take much more than his sly wit to get around the truth!!

The 1999 case of Payne Stewart's Lear jet does not prove that intercepts with the 9/11 aircraft would have been possible because it did not take 18 minutes from loss of radio contact to intercept. Here is Mike's "take":

QUOTE

This sounds impressive, but unfortunately it isn’t true. A quick look at the NTSB accident report reveals why. Here's the timeline.

"At 0933:38 EDT (6 minutes and 20 seconds after N47BA acknowledged the previous clearance), the controller instructed N47BA to change radio frequencies and contact another Jacksonville ARTCC controller. The controller received no response from N47BA. The controller called the flight five more times over the next 4 1/2 minutes but received no response.

About 0952 CDT,7 a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, was vectored to within 8 nm of N47BA. About 0954 CDT, at a range of 2,000 feet from the accident airplane and an altitude of about 46,400 feet, the test pilot made two radio calls to N47BA but did not receive a response".www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAB0001.htm

Looks good at first, but read it carefully and you'll notice a change of time zone, from Eastern to Central time. CDT is one hour on from EDT, so contact was regarded as lost at around 09:38, and the fighter didn't get to within 2000 feet of Stewart’s jet until 10:54. That's roughly 76 minutes to intercept.

Press reports from the time give more details.

The FAA said air traffic controllers lost radio contact with the plane at 9:44 a.m...

Pentagon officials said the military began its pursuit of the ghostly civilian aircraft at 10:08 a.m., when two Air Force F-16 fighters from Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida that were on a routine training mission were asked by the FAA to intercept it. The F-16s did not reach the Learjet, but an Air Force F-15 fighter from Eglin Air Force Base in Florida that also was asked to locate it got within sight of the aircraft and stayed with it from 11:09 a.m. to 11:44 a.m., when the military fighter was diverted to St. Louis for fuel.

Fifteen minutes later, four Air National Guard F-16s and a KC-135 tanker from Tulsa were ordered to try to catch up with the Learjet but got only within 100 miles. But two other Air National Guard F-16s from Fargo, N.D., intercepted the Learjet at 12:54 p.m, reporting that the aircraft's windows were fogged with ice and that no flight control movement could be seen. At 1:14 p.m., the F-16s reported that the Learjet was beginning to spiral toward the ground.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/natio...t99/crash26.htm

Putting these together with the NTSB report suggests the following points.

First, it takes time before ATC consider they’ve lost contact with a plane. The absence of any radio response was first noted at 9:34, but the controller continued trying to make contact for another four minutes, and the press report suggests contact wasn’t considered lost until six minutes after that, ten minutes after the problem was noted.

And second, NORAD don’t always have the capability to respond in a few minutes. The intercept didn’t begin for another 24 minutes, actually a fast response because the plane was already in the air.

To be fair, if the first fighters had been closer (as they were on 9/11) then the response time would have been better. And 911Research do their best to make even 76 minutes seem an insignificant length of time:

This seems an odd way of accounting. Why does the time Flight 11 veer off course make a significant difference to the intercept time for Flight 77? Or Flight 93?

Surely a more reasonable approach is to extrapolate from the “likely takeover time” (the earliest time anyone would have known about the hijacking) until the point each plane reached its final target. Which gives us the following elapsed times: Flight 11 (8:14 to 8:47 - 33 minutes), Flight 175 (8:42 to 9:04 - 22 minutes), Flight 77 (8:51 to 9:38 - 47 minutes), Flight 93 (9:27 to 10:04 - 37 minutes). See http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

(Note that some will disagree with these times, in part because we’ve taken them from the 9/11 Commission Report. 911Research, for instance, say that Flight 77 went off course at 8:46 and so it could be argued that we should start the clock then. Look at the full facts and we’re being generous, though: the time we’re using corresponds with the last reported contact with the Flight 77 pilots, and the first suspect action after that, an unauthorised turn south, wasn’t noted until 8:54. It could just as well be argued that this is the first notification of a problem, meaning our timings provide 3 minutes more intercept time than was actually available).

In the Stewart case, as we’ve seen, there was a 10 minute gap between the initial problem being observed (ATC getting no radio response) and a decision being made that contact was lost. An intercept didn’t begin for another 24 minutes, and if planes were scrambled from the ground then that could have taken longer: fighters are typically on 15 minute alert, but we’ll be generous and say it took 5.

If this were repeated on 9/11, then that’s 39 minutes, plus the time it takes the plane to reach the target, before an intercept can occur. Which suggests there wasn’t enough time to reach Flight 11 and 175 before they hit the towers, and even intercepting Flight 77 would have been very difficult. The Stewart case simply doesn’t support the idea that the 9/11 flights should have been intercepted, then: in fact, quite the opposite.

Our Take:

There appears to be some confusion as to this timeline, as another report from the Dallas Morning News seems to contradict Mike's claim:

"Instead, according to an Air Force timeline, a series of military planes provided an emergency escort to the stricken Lear, beginning with a pair of F-16 Falcons from the Air National Guard at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., about 20 minutes after ground controllers lost contact.

An F-16 and an A-10 Warthog attack plane from Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., took up the chase a few minutes later and were trailing the Lear when it climbed abruptly from 39,000 to 44,000 feet at 9:52 a.m. CDT.

Fifteen minutes later, the F-16 intercepted the Lear, the pilot reporting no movement in the cockpit."

So, here it is apparent that 20 minutes after radio contact was lost, they decided to scramble aircraft. Furthermore, from the time they decided to scramble jets, to the time they arrived at the Payne Stewarts plane, 15 minutes had elapsed.

However, to be fair to Mike, let's consider his 76 minutes and its significance to the events of 9/11...

9/11 Research states that, "83 minutes elapsed between the time that Flight 11 veered off course and the Pentagon was hit, and 112 minutes elapsed between the time that contact was lost with Flight 11 and Flight 93 crashed."

Mike considers this an "odd" way of accounting, as he doesn't seem to see how Flight 11 relates to Flight's 77 or 93. However, if we relate this to the case of Payne Stewart's Lear jet, then we will see that these times are comparable. Why? Because from the time Air Traffic Control noticed that Flight 11 had veerer off course, they should already have been aware of a potential problem. Had jets been put in the air to intercept, they may not have been able to catch Flight 11 in time, but they could have caught Flight 175. Furthermore, if redeployed they certainly would have been able to intercept Flights 77 and 93 far in advance of impact.

We also need to consider that the fighters on 9/11 were far closer than those which intercepted Payne Stewart's Lear jet. Below are NORAD's response times:

On 9/11, the first base to finally scramble interceptors was Otis in Falmouth, Massachusetts, at 8:52. This was about a half-hour after Flight 11 was taken over, and already eight minutes after the aircraft had hit the North Tower. This was 9 minutes before Flight 175 hit the South Tower.

According to NORAD, at the time of the South Tower Impact the two F-15's from Otis were still 71 miles away. Otis is 153 miles east-northeast of the WTC. That means the F-15's were flying at: (153 miles - 71 miles)/(9:03 - 8:52) = 447 mph.

That is around 23.8% of their top speed of 1875 mph!

At 9:11am the F-15's finally reached the World Trade Center. Their average speed for the trip was: 153/(9:11 - 8:52) = 483 mph.

That is only 25.8% of their top speed!

The F-16s from Langley reached the Pentagon at 9:49. It took them 19 minutes to reach Washington D.C. from Langley Air Force Base, which is about 130 miles to the south. That means the F-16's were flying at: 130 miles/(9:49 - 9:30) = 410.5 mph.

That is only 27.4% of their top speed of 1500 mph!

Andrews Air Force Base, located on the outskirts of the capital, is just over 10 miles from the Pentagon. One would have expected interceptors to be scrambled to protect the capital within a few minutes of the 8:15 loss of contact with Flight 11. Instead, no fighters from Andrews reached the Pentagon until 9:49, several minutes after impact.

What's worse, fighters that were in the air were not redeployed to intercept the deviating planes. When the fighters scrambled to protect Manhattan arrived too late, they were not redeployed to protect the capital even though they had plenty of time to reach it before the Pentagon was hit.

By the time the two F-15's from Otis reached Manhattan, the only jetliner still flying with its IFF transponder turned off had just made a 180-degree turn over southern Ohio and was now headed for Washington D.C. for 12 minutes. This was still 34 minutes before the Pentagon impact. Had the fighters been sent to protect the capital, they could have traveled the approximately 300 miles in:

300 miles/1875 mph = 9.6 minutes.

They even could have made it to the capital in time to protect the Pentagon if they had continued to fly at only 500 mph.

If we look into the NTSB report for the crash of Payne Stewart's Lear jet, we will see that:

"About 0952 CDT,7 a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, was vectored to within 8 nm of N47BA. About 0954 CDT, at a range of 2,000 feet from the accident airplane and an altitude of about 46,400 feet, the test pilot made two radio calls to N47BA but did not receive a response".http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAB0001.htm

This report makes no mention as to the speed the F-16 was travelling, however, based on this timeline it seems highly unlikely it was travelling anywhere near its top speed. Its interception occured 2 minutes after it had been vectored within 8 nm (9.2 miles) of the Lear Jet.

If you still believe that such intercepts would not have been possible on 9/11, then you need to take the following into consideration:

1. Norman Mineta gave testimony before the 9/11 Commission that Dick Cheney was told as Flight 77 was approaching the Pentagon how far out it was. When the plane was 10 miles out, a young man asked Dick Cheney "Do the orders still stand?" Dick Cheney responded: "Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!"

2. Intercepts were routine before 9/11, and they had been done numerous times before 9/11.

"Overall, during the past 4 years, NORAD's alert fighters took off to intercept aircraft (referred to as scrambled) 1,518 times, or an average of 15 times per site per year. Of these incidents, the number of suspected drug smuggling aircraft averaged one per site, or less than 7 percent of all of the alert sites' total activity. The remaining activity generally involved visually inspecting unidentified aircraft and assisting aircraft in distress."

If you believe that on 9/11 NORAD were unable to effectively respond because they were indisposed by multiple war games (including the imaginary scenario of hijacked airliners), then you have to ask yourself just how many amazing coincidences you are prepared to believe!

We just picked up a member from Boston Center (former), I had a lengthy discussion with him last night. He has many interesting things to say (also showing that 911myths doesnt have a clue) and he is working on many issues. I will notify him of this thread. Hopefully he will have time to chime in.